Premium
The efficacy of R‐Endo ® rotary NiTi and stainless‐steel hand instruments to remove gutta‐percha and Resilon
Author(s) -
Fenoul G.,
Meless G. D.,
Pérez F.
Publication year - 2010
Publication title -
international endodontic journal
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.988
H-Index - 119
eISSN - 1365-2591
pISSN - 0143-2885
DOI - 10.1111/j.1365-2591.2009.01653.x
Subject(s) - nickel titanium , materials science , dentistry , gutta percha , instrumentation (computer programming) , root canal , significant difference , dental instruments , materials testing , scanning electron microscope , orthodontics , composite material , mathematics , medicine , statistics , computer science , shape memory alloy , operating system
Fenoul G, Meless GD, Pérez F. The efficacy of R‐Endo ® rotary NiTi and stainless‐steel hand instruments to remove gutta‐percha and Resilon. International Endodontic Journal , 43 , 135–141, 2010. Abstract Aim To evaluate the efficacy of the R‐Endo ® rotary nickel titanium instrumentation system and hand instrumentation to remove gutta‐percha or Resilon ® from root canals. Methodology Eighty single‐rooted teeth with straight canals were selected, the pulp chamber was opened, and the canals prepared to a size 30, 0.04 taper. The teeth were divided randomly into two groups of 40 each for root filling with gutta‐percha + MMSeal ® sealer or Resilon ® + RealSeal ® sealer. After storage, each group was divided into two subgroups, and material was removed with Hedström files or with R‐Endo ® instrumentation. Times to reach the working length and to eliminate filling material were recorded. Root canal walls were examined using scanning electron microscope to evaluate material remnants on each third. The presence of material was measured according to a score scale. The Student’s t ‐test was used to determine significant differences between mean values of time and remaining material ( P < 0.05). Results No significant differences occurred between thirds, material or removal technique regarding remaining filling debris ( P > 0.05). However, times to reach the working length and for removal of filling were lower with R‐Endo ® than with Hedström files ( P < 0.0001). Conclusions Both instrumentation techniques left filling material inside the root canal and mainly in the apical third. There was no difference between the instrumentation techniques.